Bishop Graham appears to think that the answer to this question is self-evident. But I’m not so sure. Even the use of the magic advertising slogan word ‘organic’ does not persuade me, nor would it persuade any other red-blooded Englishman or Englishwoman, to want to be part of a bunch of grapes. What would a human being that was part of such an ‘organic’ group look like? Well, the North Koreans are probably the best people to answer that one:

Would I rather be a marble? Infinitely! What would a group of human beings that were part of a ‘disconnected Federation, like a bag of marbles’ look like? Luckily I don’t have to find a picture to explain that one. Look out of your window, walk down your street, go into a shop or, yes, a church. And what you will see are marbles. Tall ones, short ones, fat ones, thin ones, patterned ones, plain ones – do I need to go on?

Surely, if Anglicanism offers the world anything, it is the opportunity to be part of a group of people which does NOT impose a homogeneous way of life, but welcomes all parts of God’s creation to work together for the coming of the kingdom of heaven.

Marbles of the world, let us unite!

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

The photographs of the grapes are by peresanz, the marbles are by Olga Popova, both via Shutterstock

20 comments on this post:

I thought Dr Kings was a silly man when I knew him in Cambridge, and I think him a silly man now. His amusing little contrast sheds precisely no useful light on the mess the Church of England has got itself into – more clever forms of words. What we need is the Christlike discipline of living with difference, not some sort of babyfood mush in which we pretend we are all the same, really, probably, if we stick our fingers in our ears and shout “lalala” loudly enough.

Thank-you for this, Richard. The use of metaphor can be very dangerous in the hands of those who have no real imagination! But you’re right, I am letting off steam and neither he nor I are really shedding any useful light on our present situation. But after yesterday’s amazing vote in the four dioceses, where all rejected the Covenant, I really believe that the great British people have decided that defending our threatened liberty is more important than the collateral damage of hurting Archbishop Rowan’s feelings.

I think that the Bishop is mistaken, but I would, wouldn’t I (as Christine Keeler famously said).

I can remember playing marbles and they came in various sizes and denominations – much like the Anglican Communion. You played the game, and invariably won or lost, but appreciated that the rules were made up by those playing, as there wasn’t a written rule book for marbles.

In fact, much like the Anglican Communion. To my mind, having a written rule book would have destroyed the game, taken the freedom out of it and would have taken the joy, expectancy and unpredictably out of the game. Very much like the Anglican Covenant.

If marbles are gathered together in one place, I suspect that a higher grade marble will try to convince them that he is better, with bigger ideas and more value. But if the marbles play the game by the unwritten rule book, their score in the game will be equal and as valid as that of the big marble. That sounds like the Anglican Communion, not the Anglican Covenant.

There isn’t a written rule book for marbles! You are brilliant UKViewer, I hadn’t even thought of that one. I like the parallel more and more. As you say, it sounds just what the Anglican Communion ought to be.

Thank you for helping to keep the issue of the Anglican covenant in the public eye.

I like the fact that the Anglican communion has room for so much diversity. I still don’t really understand what the Anglican covenant would mean. Would it mean that if we had women bishops, and other Anglican areas objected, we would get into trouble?

I think the answer to your question is ‘yes’, but the fact that I have had to ponder it overnight illustrates the problem – lack of clarity and intelligibility!

The Covenant draws heavily on Scripture for the first three sections, which set out what we believe. The problem with this is that even the Devil can quote Scripture in support. Bits can be taken out of context, juxtaposed and so on. If we sign, we commit ourselves to obeying Scripture without, as I see it, the application of reason and tradition (Hooker’s formula – despite the fact that the Covenant includes this, it then goes on to ignore it). The argument about the role of women in worship is alive and well in many denominations – the so-called ‘complementarian’ view – supposing that came to be part of the accepted Anglican rules, the Church of England could be thrown out on the grounds of having women priests, let alone bishops. (Ditto licensed lay ministers, readers of the bible, anything except brass cleaners and bottle washers presumably).

Absolutely, Savi! And of course sanctions are very much part of international relations, aimed at coercing states into modifying their behaviour, usually without success. Now where have I heard that idea recently? I know – Section 4!

Thank-you, JCF, I was rather enjoying thinking of myself as a large, colourful, shiny marble, but you are quite right, of course, marbles are also hard and lifeless. There is also no inter-connection between them, they just knock each other about. The trouble is that very few metaphors stand up to sustained inspection! I think you are right, the bishop was basing his metaphor on the many biblical parables of Christ as the vine and us as the branches. Truth is always complex. I still think that the ‘many mansions’ of heaven must mean that we are allowed to be infinitely varied while being connected by bonds of affection.

Bishop Graham’s metaphor was pretty stupid and meaningless – marbles or grapes – we are all connected, animate and inanimate objects, by the energies which hold all creation together. Graham argues from a lack of trust in God who has created all, energises all, fills all with Spirit, blows where she wills, and grants freedom to make mistakes and get it wrong.

I happen to think Bishop Graham is dramatically wrong on the gay issue. He has campaigned against me in the diocese without once making contact with me or my Rector to find out the truth for himself. He models a disconnected church himself, allowing prejucice and projection to rule over relationships and heart connection.

The Covenant is not relational and thank God it looks as if the Church of England is going to reject it. Alleluia!

Thank-you for commenting, Colin. I know it is very naughty of me, but I play that North Korean piece whenever I need cheering up. The thought that this is what the bishops might see as organised Anglicanism is too giggle-making.